• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
For the record, Italy has long used LCN DNA. I find the 'assumption' that they somehow don't have the capability rather ethno-centric and insulting (as if the attitude is only the UK and US are qualified, equipped and have the knowledge and expertise to do anything). It was also done, in this case, in the forensics lab in Rome, equalled in status in Italy only by the Milan forensics lab. Of course the lab was fit to perform LCN DNA testing! Stefanoni also testified on the stand under tough cross examination (lasting a full two days) that full and proper controls were in place. The court in its judgement ruled that to be the case and has accepted the DNA to be valid, despite the best efforts of the best defence that could be found in the lab. Some people seem to keep forgetting there even was a trial and a verdict and instead label Dr Stefanoni a liar and the court invalid on the basis of an FOA blogger with an engineering PHD. I do not recall this engineer testifying at the trial...can anybody cite his testimony?

In the meantime, I'll go back into lurk mode lest I die of boredom from seeing the same dead horse being endlessly whipped.
 
Alt+F4 said:
Will these new experts testify at the appeal?
Click to expand...

That is a good idea. I think something of the sort is what will happen. I'm really not sure. But somebody needs to speak to the situation in front of a neutral party. I think that will happen. I think that is part of why they have appeals in the first place.
 
Open Inquiry said:
Are you saying he didn't have it reviewed?
Click to expand...

I'm saying I don't know if he had it reviewed or not and neither do you. I'm saying that even if he 'did' have it reviewed, I don't know who by, what their qualifications or experience is, the level of their impartiality, exactly 'what' documentation it is they are reviewing or whether it's the whole or snippets of the data they have access to, or whether their criticisms and suggestions are even taken on board and to all those things, neither do you.

I also have very little trust in a science specialist that insists on anonymity instead of going on record to stand by his assessments.
 
Fulcanelli said:
For the record, Italy has long used LCN DNA. I find the 'assumption' that they somehow don't have the capability rather ethno-centric and insulting (as if the attitude is only the UK and US are qualified, equipped and have the knowledge and expertise to do anything). It was also done, in this case, in the forensics lab in Rome, equalled in status in Italy only by the Milan forensics lab. Of course the lab was fit to perform LCN DNA testing! Stefanoni also testified on the stand under tough cross examination (lasting a full two days) that full and proper controls were in place. The court in its judgement ruled that to be the case and has accepted the DNA to be valid, despite the best efforts of the best defence that could be found in the lab. Some people seem to keep forgetting there even was a trial and a verdict and instead label Dr Stefanoni a liar and the court invalid on the basis of an FOA blogger with an engineering PHD. I do not recall this engineer testifying at the trial...can anybody cite his testimony?

In the meantime, I'll go back into lurk mode lest I die of boredom from seeing the same dead horse being endlessly whipped.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your reply... I will research the points you have brought up.

These are important questions, even if they seem boring, and even if the discussion seems repetitive. This is a new phase of the trial. New people will probably come along and have questions.
 
Open Inquiry said:
When did someone say that? I certainly would not say that.

I'm surprised you said that. Why would you suggest it?

(I am replying to that first...)
Click to expand...


Well actually, you did in as many words:

Open Inquiry said:
I'm not sure it is (only) an issue of the samples, but of the prep of the equipment and the type of lab. I'm pretty sure (though it would need to be verified) that Italy does not have LCN testing facilities.
Click to expand...

#4662
 
Fulcanelli said:
I'm saying I don't know if he had it reviewed or not and neither do you. I'm saying that even if he 'did' have it reviewed, I don't know who by, what their qualifications or experience is, the level of their impartiality, exactly 'what' documentation it is they are reviewing or whether it's the whole or snippets of the data they have access to, or whether their criticisms and suggestions are even taken on board and to all those things, neither do you.

I also have very little trust in a science specialist that insists on anonymity instead of going on record to stand by his assessments.
Click to expand...

Original documents are available and I don't need to stop at what is printed online. Further investigation and information-seeking is a possible and it is a very good idea.
 
Open Inquiry said:
Thank you for your reply... I will research the points you have brought up.

These are important questions, even if they seem boring, and even if the discussion seems repetitive. This is a new phase of the trial. New people will probably come along and have questions.
Click to expand...

It's not a new phase of the trial. The trial has ended, it ended in December last year with a guilty verdict and the Motivations for the decision have just been released in a 457 page recto-verso report.
 
Open Inquiry said:
I never said it was due to capability. I thought it was a technical fact that don't have those facilities. I'll see what I can find on it.
Click to expand...

Well, if they don't have the facilities then they're not capable are they?

Which would be kind of odd, since the Italians have been using the LCN technique for years.
 
Fulcanelli said:
For the record, Italy has long used LCN DNA. ...Of course the lab was fit to perform LCN DNA testing! Stefanoni also testified on the stand under tough cross examination (lasting a full two days) that full and proper controls were in place. The court in its judgement ruled that to be the case.
Click to expand...

These are exactly my questions.
 
Fulcanelli said:
It's not a new phase of the trial. The trial has ended, it ended in December last year with a guilty verdict and the Motivations for the decision have just been released in a 457 page recto-verso report.
Click to expand...

I meant it is now in the appeals phase, so there are probably people that who have questions, etc... Escpecially with new judge's report and now that the reasons have been given. Now it can be discussed in a new way. The appeals process is said to be a rationale so it is amenable and lends quite well to logical analysis.
 
Open Inquiry said:
I meant it is now in the appeals phase, so there are probably people that who have questions, etc... Escpecially with new judge's report and now that the reasons have been given. Now it can be discussed in a new way. The appeals process is said to be a rationale so it is amenable and lends quite well to logical analysis.
Click to expand...

Any 'new' questions? If so, which ones and why weren't they asked in the main trial...all the evidence was presented and hasn't changed, was an 11 month trial not long enough to ask them?
 
Fulcanelli said:
Any 'new' questions? If so, which ones and why weren't they asked in the main trial...all the evidence was presented and hasn't changed, was an 11 month trial not long enough to ask them?
Click to expand...

People have new questions now that they know why the judge and jury voted guilty.
 
Open Inquiry said:
People have new questions now that they know why the judge and jury voted guilty.
Click to expand...

Yes, their motivations do raise certain new questions, mostly regarding matters of motive and scenario, since some of these things are 'new'. But I don't see what new questions there can be about the DNA evidence. Specifically regarding the DNA, what is new or what has changed as a result of the Judges' Report?
 
Open Inquiry said:
People have new questions now that they know why the judge and jury voted guilty.
Click to expand...

There certainly are things that don't add up in the case summary.

Raffaele probably got dressed first and walked outside to take the rock. Then they went to simulate the break-in together, throwing the rock against the open window from inside the room.
Click to expand...

The pattern of the broken glass and the mark on the inner shutter prove that the rock was thrown from the outside and the window was closed when it was broken.

It seems that Italian court decisions don't need to conform to the laws of physics.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Yes, their motivations do raise certain new questions, mostly regarding matters of motive and scenario, since some of these things are 'new'. But I don't see what new questions there can be about the DNA evidence. Specifically regarding the DNA, what is new or what has changed as a result of the Judges' Report?
Click to expand...


For one thing, there is a new prosecution, new judge, new jury. They might have a different take on the evidence, what is valid, etc...

But there is more to it than what you present in the above comment. I have to step away but I'll get back to with a reply. Thanks............
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom